PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James

That isn't a very clear answer, but perhaps the best way to move forward in this conversation is if I were to put the same thing to you that you put to me. Namely, can you guarantee that any LC who become Orthodox don't have to delatinize (or should I say Easternize)?

define "Easternize." Retaining the filioque, for instance, is out.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James

That isn't a very clear answer, but perhaps the best way to move forward in this conversation is if I were to put the same thing to you that you put to me. Namely, can you guarantee that any LC who become Orthodox don't have to delatinize (or should I say Easternize)?

define "Easternize."

Alright, that's a fair question. I guess I would use the WRO as an example of "delatinized/Easternized".

PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James

That isn't a very clear answer, but perhaps the best way to move forward in this conversation is if I were to put the same thing to you that you put to me. Namely, can you guarantee that any LC who become Orthodox don't have to delatinize (or should I say Easternize)?

define "Easternize."

Alright, that's a fair question. I guess I would use the WRO as an example of "delatinized/Easternized".

Another necessary clarification - the question started in terms of a contrast to Rome's handling of it's sui juris Eastern-rite churches but now you seem to be asking about the individual level. And the answer is different if you are talking about an LC converting in a place where there are only Eastern-rite Orthodox churches versus an LC converting to a WRO parish (or a whole LC parish converting to the WRO) and both those would be radically different than a scenario comparable to that to of the Eastern-rite churches in the Roman communion (i.e., if the LC bishops of Canada decided as a synod to separate from Rome and join Orthodoxy and the other Orthodox Churches accepted them as a Latin-rite Autonomous or Autocephalous church).

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James

That isn't a very clear answer, but perhaps the best way to move forward in this conversation is if I were to put the same thing to you that you put to me. Namely, can you guarantee that any LC who become Orthodox don't have to delatinize (or should I say Easternize)?

define "Easternize."

Alright, that's a fair question. I guess I would use the WRO as an example of "delatinized/Easternized".

Well, not totally. As the WRO follow the pre schism latin traditions of the fast, certain worship styles (te deum laudamus, etc.) So "delatinized" would not be accurate...however what you'd call it is beyond me.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

PP, I'm not trying to convince you that we Catholics have never done a bait and switch. In fact, I'm convinced that we have. Two wrongs don't make a right. But regardless, I don't think that EOs are so much pro-EC as anti-LC.

I'd give you that, but my experience in towns where all three are present is that LCs are even more anti-EC than they are anti-EO, which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

If Rome became Orthodox I'd be overjoyed to enter into communion with you, but it's the fact of Rome pushing latinization on the ECs and the attitudes of many LCs towards them that reinforces in me the feeling that what Rome wants of us is not for us to enter into communion on the basis of a shared faith but rather to 'bend the knee' (and I chose that phrase deliberately in the previous post) to the Vatican. In other words, I do not believe that Rome wants to genuinely heal the Schism, the goal still being domination rather than reconciliation and the fact of the treatment of ECs appears to continually prove this.

James

That isn't a very clear answer, but perhaps the best way to move forward in this conversation is if I were to put the same thing to you that you put to me. Namely, can you guarantee that any LC who become Orthodox don't have to delatinize (or should I say Easternize)?

define "Easternize."

Alright, that's a fair question. I guess I would use the WRO as an example of "delatinized/Easternized".

The Church I went to used Latin and the Rite of St. Gregory, so you are still not making any sense.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well let me put it this way: can you honestly say that each WRO parish doesn't have to embrace any Easternizations that it doesn't want to? (Excepting the filioque, which I won't count as an Easternizations for purpose of this discussion.)

Well let me put it this way: can you honestly say that each WRO parish doesn't have to embrace any Easternizations that it doesn't want to? (Excepting the filioque, which I won't count as an Easternizations for purpose of this discussion.)

I dont understand the term "Easternizations". The Western Rite Orthodox are 100% Orthodox in our belief, canons, and traditions. We even answer to the same bishops. The Eastern Catholics can not say that.

The East did not innovate anything, so I am confused as to what you're referring to.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Well let me put it this way: can you honestly say that each WRO parish doesn't have to embrace any Easternizations that it doesn't want to? (Excepting the filioque, which I won't count as an Easternizations for purpose of this discussion.)

I'm no expert on the WRO but I would assume the answer is 'no'. My point is that WRO parishes, which are not jurisdictionally separate but under Eastern-rite bishops and synods, are not really comparable to the situation of the EC's where you are talking about the relationship between Eastern-Rite bishops and synods and their LC counterparts.

(That is, if an Eastern-rite bishop tells a WR priest under his omophorion to do this or that, it's an entirely separate thing from if an Eastern-rite bishop tells a Latin-rite bishop to do the same (or vice-versa), because the first situation is an explicit relationship of authority and obedience while the second is supposed to be some kind of relationship between equals).

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Well let me put it this way: can you honestly say that each WRO parish doesn't have to embrace any Easternizations that it doesn't want to? (Excepting the filioque, which I won't count as an Easternizations for purpose of this discussion.)

I'm no expert on the WRO but I would assume the answer is 'no'. My point is that WRO parishes, which are not jurisdictionally separate but under Eastern-rite bishops and synods, are not really comparable to the situation of the EC's where you are talking about the relationship between Eastern-Rite bishops and synods and their LC counterparts.

(That is, if an Eastern-rite bishop tells a WR priest under his omophorion to do this or that, it's an entirely separate thing from if an Eastern-rite bishop tells a Latin-rite bishop to do the same (or vice-versa), because the first situation is an explicit relationship of authority and obedience while the second is supposed to be some kind of relationship between equals).

Thats really the difference. We are 100% as Orthodox as the Eastern Rites, and 100% as much a part of the same Church. We are all one body and the only real difference is liturgy. Everything else is basically the same with only minor differences, and those are majorly just from a pre-schism latin historical tradition.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Well let me put it this way: can you honestly say that each WRO parish doesn't have to embrace any Easternizations that it doesn't want to? (Excepting the filioque, which I won't count as an Easternizations for purpose of this discussion.)

No, they don't.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well let me put it this way: can you honestly say that each WRO parish doesn't have to embrace any Easternizations that it doesn't want to? (Excepting the filioque, which I won't count as an Easternizations for purpose of this discussion.)

which has always left me with the distinct feeling that if we ever were to bow the knee to Rome we'd end up being forced into Latinizations before we'd ever be properly accepted.

James

But let me ask you this: if (and I don't know how big of an if this is for you) you guys didn't have any suspicions that latinizations would be pushed on you, would you consider coming into communion with Rome?

...As for the Vatican, your scenario doesn't say anything about it giving up its heresies.

I take that as a No. Which is not at all unexpected.

I've very often heard Orthodox say things like: We won't enter into full communion with the Pope unless the latinization-problems are solved; (I don't have other examples of these kind of statements at my fingertips, except the one from jmbejdl, but I could probably find some of you doubt their existence); but the bottom line is that you guys really have no full-communion intentions regardless.

Kind of like me saying "I won't marry you unless ___________" to a woman that I actually have no interest in.

Thanks for those answers. I don't think I agree -- I don't think WROs are able to be completely Western -- but it's certainly possible that I'm wrong about that.

No, because then we'd be Roman Catholic

PP

So you admit that we more fully preserve the Western Christian traditions than you guys do?

You appear to have misunderstood what I was saying. I guess I really wasn't very clear. The Latinizations are not, in my opinion, the problem but rather the symptoms of a larger problem with Rome's attitude to the ECs. By saying if Rome were Orthodox I meant in faith. Whether the practices are western or eastern is of no consequence. What is of very great consequence I feel, however, is that ECs have been lead to believe that they can keep their practices and still be in communion with Rome but the reality is that this has not happened and Latinizations are pushed on them. This shows me that Rome really does want to dominate, not reconcile with us in the east, that Rome cannot be trusted not to interfere with the internal affairs of non-Latin Rite churches (for all their claims to the contrary) so long as they adhere to the ecclesiology they do, and that for all the talk of 'two lungs' they really do appear to consider our faith as less worthy and in need of an injection of the Latin Rite. And this apparent disdain for the ECs is not, in my experience in any way confined to the clergy or the Vatican. I've seen the exact same thing amongst Latin Rite laiety- the attitude of 'if they were really Catholic they'd join us' when talking of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church on the corner. It's observation of the behaviour of Rome, and of LCs, to the ECs that convinces me that we should be very wary indeed of any attempt at reconciliation with Rome and that the absolute number one prerequisite must be reform of Latin ecclesiology. Unfortunately, I can't see that ever happening.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Thanks for that clarification, jmbejdl. But to go back to the topic of ECs in the US, I think this sheds a lot of light on the discussion:

Quote from: Irish Melkite

It is not that Latin bishops in the US have any say in the affairs of the Eastern Churches (let alone "authority" as your post immediately above suggests). In fact, they don't, except in the instances where they have superintendency of parishes belonging to Churches without hierarchs in the US.

What they may have is influence.

But, you're pursuing an issue for which there is no basis whatsoever. Cardinal Sandri's comment stands, at this moment, on his shoulders and his alone. No one, neither any of our hierarchs, nor the Cardinal himself, has suggested that the US Latin bishops played any part in motivating his exhortation to our hierarchs - so, let's not try to raise hackles over an issue that we have no - not any - basis to suggest.

Unless and until someone with actual knowledge to support the idea offers information to the effect that the US Latin bishops or some subset of them fostered the Cardinal's concern, we will not be sponsoring or hosting conspiracy theories to that effect here. We have enough real issues with which to contend without creating shadow opponents and waging battle against them.

Thanks for that clarification, jmbejdl. But to go back to the topic of ECs in the US, I think this sheds a lot of light on the discussion:

Quote from: Irish Melkite

It is not that Latin bishops in the US have any say in the affairs of the Eastern Churches (let alone "authority" as your post immediately above suggests). In fact, they don't, except in the instances where they have superintendency of parishes belonging to Churches without hierarchs in the US.

What they may have is influence.

But, you're pursuing an issue for which there is no basis whatsoever. Cardinal Sandri's comment stands, at this moment, on his shoulders and his alone. No one, neither any of our hierarchs, nor the Cardinal himself, has suggested that the US Latin bishops played any part in motivating his exhortation to our hierarchs - so, let's not try to raise hackles over an issue that we have no - not any - basis to suggest.

Unless and until someone with actual knowledge to support the idea offers information to the effect that the US Latin bishops or some subset of them fostered the Cardinal's concern, we will not be sponsoring or hosting conspiracy theories to that effect here. We have enough real issues with which to contend without creating shadow opponents and waging battle against them.

Note that Latin bishops in the US don't have any say in the affairs of ECs, but may have influence.

maybe not de jure, but de facto

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Thanks for that clarification, jmbejdl. But to go back to the topic of ECs in the US, I think this sheds a lot of light on the discussion:

Quote from: Irish Melkite

It is not that Latin bishops in the US have any say in the affairs of the Eastern Churches (let alone "authority" as your post immediately above suggests). In fact, they don't, except in the instances where they have superintendency of parishes belonging to Churches without hierarchs in the US.

What they may have is influence.

But, you're pursuing an issue for which there is no basis whatsoever. Cardinal Sandri's comment stands, at this moment, on his shoulders and his alone. No one, neither any of our hierarchs, nor the Cardinal himself, has suggested that the US Latin bishops played any part in motivating his exhortation to our hierarchs - so, let's not try to raise hackles over an issue that we have no - not any - basis to suggest.

Unless and until someone with actual knowledge to support the idea offers information to the effect that the US Latin bishops or some subset of them fostered the Cardinal's concern, we will not be sponsoring or hosting conspiracy theories to that effect here. We have enough real issues with which to contend without creating shadow opponents and waging battle against them.

I suspect that this entire argument is rather pointless. IF unity were ever at the cusp of occurring, there would be many in both the western churches and the eastern churches who would never be satisfied with what the 'others' would have to do to be 'fully' part of the same church. It would appear that what would be ritualistically acceptable to say, bishops and scholars, would likely not be acceptable to a large percentage of the bodies of the current west and the current east. Perhaps our scholars should try to recreated actual ritual practice of say, 890 AD and impose the same on both the current east and the current west. Just kidding, but that thought points out the real world problems that this question poses.

Here is a novel hypothetical thought - if Rome were to offer a full 'release' of clergy, property and faithful to any Greek Catholic congregation or diocese for that matter which chooses to join the Orthodox Church with the 'flip' side of the offer being that those easterners who choose to remain loyal to Rome must submit to certain things - like acceptance of the universal, superior jurisdiction of the Pope in all matters of administration, acceptance of mandatory celibacy being one of them and submission of all Eastern or Western Catholics to the proper Ordinary bishop of a geographical area (as we do with the WRO) - that would create an interesting change to the current dynamic. However, that 'ain't' gonna happen any time soon..... And I would think that the 'takers' of such an 'offer' would be far fewer in number than many Orthodox would imagine.

Here is a novel hypothetical thought - if Rome were to offer a full 'release' of clergy, property and faithful to any Greek Catholic congregation or diocese for that matter which chooses to join the Orthodox Church with the 'flip' side of the offer being that those easterners who choose to remain loyal to Rome must submit to certain things - like acceptance of the universal, superior jurisdiction of the Pope in all matters of administration, acceptance of mandatory celibacy being one of them and submission of all Eastern or Western Catholics to the proper Ordinary bishop of a geographical area (as we do with the WRO) - that would create an interesting change to the current dynamic. However, that 'ain't' gonna happen any time soon..... And I would think that the 'takers' of such an 'offer' would be far fewer in number than many Orthodox would imagine

See, I think the opposite. I think there would be a flood of folks joining Orthodoxy because it would be an "either you leave or become Latin" mentality that would upset alot of folks. Especially after all the promises of Rome to let the EC's have their traditions.

I also dont think it'll happen, but if it did, the Eastern Catholic landscape would look more like a ghost town.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Here is a novel hypothetical thought - if Rome were to offer a full 'release' of clergy, property and faithful to any Greek Catholic congregation or diocese for that matter which chooses to join the Orthodox Church with the 'flip' side of the offer being that those easterners who choose to remain loyal to Rome must submit to certain things - like acceptance of the universal, superior jurisdiction of the Pope in all matters of administration, acceptance of mandatory celibacy being one of them and submission of all Eastern or Western Catholics to the proper Ordinary bishop of a geographical area (as we do with the WRO) - that would create an interesting change to the current dynamic. However, that 'ain't' gonna happen any time soon..... And I would think that the 'takers' of such an 'offer' would be far fewer in number than many Orthodox would imagine

See, I think the opposite. I think there would be a flood of folks joining Orthodoxy because it would be an "either you leave or become Latin" mentality that would upset alot of folks.

That's an understatement. It's hard to even imagine the Pope doing something so objectionable.

Here is a novel hypothetical thought - if Rome were to offer a full 'release' of clergy, property and faithful to any Greek Catholic congregation or diocese for that matter which chooses to join the Orthodox Church with the 'flip' side of the offer being that those easterners who choose to remain loyal to Rome must submit to certain things - like acceptance of the universal, superior jurisdiction of the Pope in all matters of administration, acceptance of mandatory celibacy being one of them and submission of all Eastern or Western Catholics to the proper Ordinary bishop of a geographical area (as we do with the WRO) - that would create an interesting change to the current dynamic. However, that 'ain't' gonna happen any time soon..... And I would think that the 'takers' of such an 'offer' would be far fewer in number than many Orthodox would imagine

See, I think the opposite. I think there would be a flood of folks joining Orthodoxy because it would be an "either you leave or become Latin" mentality that would upset alot of folks.

That's an understatement. It's hard to even imagine the Pope doing something so objectionable.

I agree. I dont think the Pope would do something like that.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

The passed few times the Vatican has tried to enforce celibacy on Greek Catholics it has resulted in them just parking their cars across the street on Sunday mornings at the Orthodox Church. Also, church property issues, calender issues and new translated and botched liturgical texts make Greek Catholics "cross the parking lot" to the Orthodox Church. I say "cross the parking lot" because there are many GC and Orthodox parishes that were built that close together.

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

The passed few times the Vatican has tried to enforce celibacy on Greek Catholics it has resulted in them just parking their cars across the street on Sunday mornings at the Orthodox Church. Also, church property issues, calender issues and new translated and botched liturgical texts make Greek Catholics "cross the parking lot" to the Orthodox Church. I say "cross the parking lot" because there are many GC and Orthodox parishes that were built that close together.

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

The passed few times the Vatican has tried to enforce celibacy on Greek Catholics it has resulted in them just parking their cars across the street on Sunday mornings at the Orthodox Church. Also, church property issues, calender issues and new translated and botched liturgical texts make Greek Catholics "cross the parking lot" to the Orthodox Church. I say "cross the parking lot" because there are many GC and Orthodox parishes that were built that close together.

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

Well of course. How they come into the church is up to the priest and bishop. I'm neither one of those so I don't get a say in what goes on in that department.

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

The passed few times the Vatican has tried to enforce celibacy on Greek Catholics it has resulted in them just parking their cars across the street on Sunday mornings at the Orthodox Church. Also, church property issues, calender issues and new translated and botched liturgical texts make Greek Catholics "cross the parking lot" to the Orthodox Church. I say "cross the parking lot" because there are many GC and Orthodox parishes that were built that close together.

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

Are you asking whether they can remain Eastern Catholic but still receive communion?

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

The passed few times the Vatican has tried to enforce celibacy on Greek Catholics it has resulted in them just parking their cars across the street on Sunday mornings at the Orthodox Church. Also, church property issues, calender issues and new translated and botched liturgical texts make Greek Catholics "cross the parking lot" to the Orthodox Church. I say "cross the parking lot" because there are many GC and Orthodox parishes that were built that close together.

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

Are you asking whether they can remain Eastern Catholic but still receive communion?

When large numbers of faithful are received, such as in the two waves of the 20th century which led to the OCA and ACROD, 'economia' governed and the reception was 'blessed' and uneventful. Given the trauma which occurred within the Greek Catholic parishes those folks left, there would be little doubt that any of those faithful needed to publicly profess a rejection of Papalism.

So what I'm hearing is that if married EC priests aren't allowed in the US, that will severely harm Orthodox-Catholic relations. Is that accurate?

The passed few times the Vatican has tried to enforce celibacy on Greek Catholics it has resulted in them just parking their cars across the street on Sunday mornings at the Orthodox Church. Also, church property issues, calender issues and new translated and botched liturgical texts make Greek Catholics "cross the parking lot" to the Orthodox Church. I say "cross the parking lot" because there are many GC and Orthodox parishes that were built that close together.

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

Are you asking whether they can remain Eastern Catholic but still receive communion?

Not really, although that certainly is one possible interpretation of my question. I'm asking if when those who crossed the parking lot on any given Sunday morning stayed on the "other side" of the lot or if the next Sunday they went back from whence they came, receiving Holy Communion on both sides of the lot.

We've had the discussion several times before of Catholics receiving Communion in Orthodox Churches (and vice-versa), and there are some who refuse to accept or are outraged that a) it happens, b) it's more common than admitted in certain areas of the U.S. and abroad, and c) when it happens it's done knowingly and with acceptance from priests and bishops of the dioceses involved. It's not my intention to revisit that here, but username sort of opened the door by how he worded his comment. I'm perfectly happy if no one wants to discuss this further here.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Not really, although that certainly is one possible interpretation of my question. I'm asking if when those who crossed the parking lot on any given Sunday morning stayed on the "other side" of the lot or if the next Sunday they went back from whence they came, receiving Holy Communion on both sides of the lot.

Thanks for that clarification, J Michael. I had thought of 2 possible interpretations of your question

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

and I wasn't sure which was correct. (Turns out, neither of them.)

Incidentally, I wonder about that too. Not only in terms of what the Orthodox think about it (not that there's much need for me to wonder since I've heard from them many times on the subject) but also from the Catholic p.o.v.: it never fails to amaze me when someone leaves Catholicism but still wants to receive communion in Catholic churches. :emoticon:

Not really, although that certainly is one possible interpretation of my question. I'm asking if when those who crossed the parking lot on any given Sunday morning stayed on the "other side" of the lot or if the next Sunday they went back from whence they came, receiving Holy Communion on both sides of the lot.

Thanks for that clarification, J Michael. I had thought of 2 possible interpretations of your question

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

and I wasn't sure which was correct. (Turns out, neither of them.)

Incidentally, I wonder about that too. Not only in terms of what the Orthodox think about it (not that there's much need for me to wonder since I've heard from them many times on the subject) but also from the Catholic p.o.v.: it never fails to amaze me when someone leaves Catholicism but still wants to receive communion in Catholic churches. :emoticon:

I reckon that can only be answered on a case by case basis, no one answer necessarily applying to all. I know there are some who, rightly or wrongly, see the Church as just that--THE Church, and that the schism between us (Catholic and Orthodox) is "sinful" and they refuse to participate in that sin to the extent they are able. But, that's just one answer of potentially many.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Not really, although that certainly is one possible interpretation of my question. I'm asking if when those who crossed the parking lot on any given Sunday morning stayed on the "other side" of the lot or if the next Sunday they went back from whence they came, receiving Holy Communion on both sides of the lot.

Thanks for that clarification, J Michael. I had thought of 2 possible interpretations of your question

Once one "crosses the parking lot", is Holy Communion offered to and received by those who've crossed? Or is confession required first, along with a renouncement of Roman "heresies"?

and I wasn't sure which was correct. (Turns out, neither of them.)

Incidentally, I wonder about that too. Not only in terms of what the Orthodox think about it (not that there's much need for me to wonder since I've heard from them many times on the subject) but also from the Catholic p.o.v.: it never fails to amaze me when someone leaves Catholicism but still wants to receive communion in Catholic churches. :emoticon:

I reckon that can only be answered on a case by case basis, no one answer necessarily applying to all. I know there are some who, rightly or wrongly, see the Church as just that--THE Church, and that the schism between us (Catholic and Orthodox) is "sinful" and they refuse to participate in that sin to the extent they are able. But, that's just one answer of potentially many.

but only one correct answer, the Orthodox answer. They can go toddle off to their "THE Church" and leave THE Church to us.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not really, although that certainly is one possible interpretation of my question. I'm asking if when those who crossed the parking lot on any given Sunday morning stayed on the "other side" of the lot or if the next Sunday they went back from whence they came, receiving Holy Communion on both sides of the lot.

Thanks for that clarification, J Michael. I had thought of 2 possible interpretations of your question

and I wasn't sure which was correct. (Turns out, neither of them.)

Care to share what they were? Not looking for an argument or anything--I'm just curious.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Incidentally, I wonder about that too. Not only in terms of what the Orthodox think about it (not that there's much need for me to wonder since I've heard from them many times on the subject) but also from the Catholic p.o.v.: it never fails to amaze me when someone leaves Catholicism but still wants to receive communion in Catholic churches. :emoticon:

I reckon that can only be answered on a case by case basis, no one answer necessarily applying to all. I know there are some who, rightly or wrongly, see the Church as just that--THE Church, and that the schism between us (Catholic and Orthodox) is "sinful" and they refuse to participate in that sin to the extent they are able. But, that's just one answer of potentially many.

Incidentally, I wonder about that too. Not only in terms of what the Orthodox think about it (not that there's much need for me to wonder since I've heard from them many times on the subject) but also from the Catholic p.o.v.: it never fails to amaze me when someone leaves Catholicism but still wants to receive communion in Catholic churches. :emoticon:

I reckon that can only be answered on a case by case basis, no one answer necessarily applying to all. I know there are some who, rightly or wrongly, see the Church as just that--THE Church, and that the schism between us (Catholic and Orthodox) is "sinful" and they refuse to participate in that sin to the extent they are able. But, that's just one answer of potentially many.

Still thinking about that one.

I suppose I should add that there are those amongst the people I mention above who actually *do* partake of Communion with the knowledge and assent of the presiding priest and bishop, and those who, even though they may *want* to, choose to abide by rules/regulations of their Church and do not partake. I judge neither.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian